States submit plans to keep threatened species off endangered list

The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 11/03/2005 | Joe Baird

[GreenFreeper]

Utah last month submitted a wildlife action plan to the Interior Department that charts a future course for species and habitat protection and restoration. Now, so has everybody else.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced Wednesday that wildlife agencies from all 50 states and six territories have finalized similar plans to establish a national framework for species protection. The goals: to enhance habitats, and in doing so, keep at-risk wildlife off the federally managed Endangered Species List.

"We all recognize that the federal government can't do this alone; it can't conserve and protect everything that needs to be protected," Norton said during a morning news conference. "If we're going to succeed, it must be by working hand-in-hand with partners. Today, we're creating a new conservation legacy."

The action plans were required by the Interior Department for states to continue receiving funds from the State Wildlife Grant Program, which has doled out $400 million for state conservation efforts since 2001. Just over $63 million will be distributed next year. Utah has received more than $5 million from the program and is scheduled to get an $849,000 allocation in 2006. All grant funds must be matched by state or local agencies.

Norton says that the grant program "is now our nation's primary conservation program for keeping species healthy and off the list of threatened and endangered species."

Dana Dolsen, planning manager for Utah's Division of Wildlife Resources, calls the federal money vital for a wide range of species and programs that fall short of endangered or threatened status, and aren't big-game species, which receive funding from their own dedicated sources.

"These are species that we know enough about to make wise decisions and keep them off the [endangered] list," Dolsen said, ticking off the least chub and Columbia toad as a pair of examples. "Then there's another tier of species we can work on if we have the money, and another group of about 50 species that we still don't know much about."

The question environmentalists pose is, now that the states have plans in place and access to these federal funds, will they prioritize and spend wisely?

"What we're afraid of is that this will end up being window dressing for vegetative treatments that might benefit the sage-grouse and might benefit deer and elk, but will surely benefit cattle," said Allison Jones, a biologist with the Western Wildlife Conservancy. "We're worried about the lesser-known species like the three-toed woodpecker and the pygmy rabbit. These are species that are currently falling through the cracks and need the most funds. So let's sit back and see where [DWR] really focuses its resources."

That may not take long. With plans and funding in place, state and local agencies can begin to move ahead quickly.

"These are action plans. They're not inventories or studies," said Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[girlangler]

And hunters/anglers still provide the most monetary support for true conservation programs.

The others just have become fundraising engines.

When I was much younger, I sent money to some so-called "environmental, conservation," organizations. The CARA bill in Congress that fell by the wayside in the 1990s would have made other users of the forests accountable.

However, I'd rather they not have the influence on wildlife management decisions.

Boy, I got a wake-up call when I, as part of my job,had to do some research and write about the conservation movement.

[midwyf]

All of the folks who own land that is designated habitat for an "endangered" species, are unable to use their land, but they are still responsible for the taxes and the cost, do any of you really think that is fair?
If someone wants to use your house to protect a rare cockroach or mouse (rare in their opinion) are you willing to move out and turn it over to them and continue the upkeep? I don't think you have any idea how much this law is costing and has cost individuals. So much of it is absolute bs, and it becomes impossible to get out from under them.
Are any of you aware that livestock owners cannot kill a wolf chasing or harrasing his sheep, horses or cows, only if it is in the act of killing, is that an option. If his dog is attacked and killed by them, and a number have been, including one on the porch of his home, there is nothing the owner can do except try to shoo the wolves away.

[midwyf]

Thank you you said it so much better than I could.

[ZULU]

"All of the folks who own land that is designated habitat for an "endangered" species, are unable to use their land, but they are still responsible for the taxes and the cost, do any of you really think that is fair? "

Depends.

"If someone wants to use your house to protect a rare cockroach or mouse (rare in their opinion) are you willing to move out and turn it over to them and continue the upkeep?"

Very little of this impacts individual homeowners. The brunt of the onus is on large land speculators nd developers of subdivisions and commerical properties.

"Are any of you aware that livestock owners cannot kill a wolf chasing or harrasing his sheep, horses or cows, only if it is in the act of killing, is that an option. If his dog is attacked and killed by them, and a number have been, including one on the porch of his home, there is nothing the owner can do except try to shoo the wolves away "

That's wrong and not really the same issue.